Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Nigam Chander Bahl – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. Bokaro in Factory Case No. 01 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned C.J.M. Bokaro has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against these petitioners. It has been pointed out that the petitioner no. 1-Nigam Chandra Bahl is the occupier and petitioner no. 2-D.P. Banerjee, is the Manager of the factory M/s Electrosteel Steels Ltd. Siyaljori, Chandankyari, district-Bokaro and the allegation against them is that on 14.10.2010 from the under constructed S.M.S of factory premises one workman Vasisht Mahatha fell down during the work from High Bay Structural Platform by which he died and after the said incident the statement of the co-workers were recorded. It was alleged that the factory premises was unsafe and dangerous and no step was taken for the railing and fencing of the same, therefore, the deceased workman fell down from the under constructed high Bay platform and he died. It has also been alleged that the said workman was not pro
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act is invoked only when the manufacturing process in the factory has commenced.
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
The interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Factories Act, particularly Sections 97 and 111, are crucial in determining liability for workplace accidents.
Liability under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 is determined based on the definition of 'Occupier' and 'Manager' as per Section 2(n) of the Act.
Parallel prosecutions under IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are impermissible, necessitating prosecution under one enactment only.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1948, and the absence of vi....
The main legal point established is that the Director and Manager cannot be held responsible for an accident without evidence of their involvement, and key provisions of the Factories Act must be con....
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
Prosecutions under different sections for workplace incidents can coexist without double jeopardy as they address distinct legal matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
